lily

I'm over 40 and I like a lot of today's music. There's been enough good stuff and bad stuff in each generation to make this thread zoom to 10+ pages. And IMO - the first sign of being "old" is complaining about "the crao that passes for 'music' these days".

I really like the sound of that.

It probably is cheaper. I was told when I had my accident that the RCMP were insured by the Crown. It may mean "no insurance at all", or it may be a different insurance, because the RCMP isn't provincial, while ICBC is. I don't know. I actually don't believe you though. I got rear-ended while stopped at a light. When I made mty claim, ICBC told me they'd have to talk to the guy in front of me before they could settle the claim - they wanted to know if he'd felt 2 impacts or just one (to determine if they were dealing with a single incident or two) Once he filed, all I had to do was pick up my cheque (the car was written off) I didn't have to fight them for anything. From what I understand, most accidents are found to be 100% to one driver. When I had the accident with the cop, ICBC gave me the royal run-around. The adjuster gave me all sorts of stories... which he back-tracked pretty quick when I took my Dad in with me. I do agree with you on the monopoly thing... it's the same with phone service and banking and several other things. I don't know if I want it opened up to competition though - that just creates a different set of headaches.

Economic Left/Right: -4.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15 I've shifted since the last time I took this test.

How often is the blame split though? Last time I saw stats for that showed the opposite. I've been involved in a few accidents - none of which I was at fault - and the only one where there was an issue was the one where I was rear-ended by a cop. Everyone from the witnesses to the accident investigator on the scene agreed I wasn't at all to blame. Unfortunately it dragged on because the RCMP have Crown insurance and they didn't want to have to pay. In the end, I agreed to accept 25% liability, but only because that wouldn't affect my safe driving discount. I'd far rather deal with a single company. I'm a little too young to remember the days before ICBC, but I do recall hearing the complaints about dealing with multiple insurance companies. Also consider. Have you ever been hospitalized inthe US, and had to deal with the fights between various insurance... through work, travel insurance and regular medical? Everyone wants the other guy to pay first, and it can take YEARS to settle.

Why waste time asking? Have them send in a photo, or apply in person. That' should streamline things.

Nope. But interesting that you would think that.

She's getting better.

Holy crap. You went from bad to worse. I didn't think that was possible.

I'm outraged by rape PERIOD.

I would say there's a lot more to it than skin colour. I think this is a stupid topic. Speaking from my personal perspective, of course. I don't claim to speak for all rational thinkers.

From a woman's perspective. If I got raped, I wouldn't give a rat's ass what colour the guy was.

Wow.

The 9/11 terrorists came through Canada. Really. It's true. I've heard it lots of times.

Uh, yeah. He did.

I don't think we need to defend out honour. We're not the ones lying.

Which is what he said.... so long as it's for personal use, it's not illegal here.

Yes, you certainly are.

No, you did NOT quote me in context. I said: "We shouldn't take questions about our faith - and how it couldn't possibly be based on reason - to heart?" And you asked me why we shouldn't take questions about our faith... and you think that didn't misrepresent what I was saying? And you wonder why I don't like discussions like this that aren't as honest as people claim? Clearly my parents forced religion on me and I don't have the reasoning skills to get past that. Do you seriously NOT see any insult in your posts? Or do you think simply adding "don't be insulted " negates it?

I lol'ed at the last bit. My faith is personal and private. I don't like to discuss the "rationale" as it were behind my decisions, because that can come across as trying to force my beliefs on others (see the 3rd or 4th response in the topic) People try to separate science from religion, as if you can't accept both. I don't understand that. Evolution exists. I don'[t see it conflicting with a creationism theory at all. People like to point and laugh at the Bible, figuring that everyone takes it literally. It's not. Some is literal, sure, but a lot is allegory, poetry.... some is cryptic enough that no'one can really say for sure what it means. We can only speculate based on what we know... but most average believers don't claim to have all the facts. (neither do scientists!) I can talk to you about the circumstances surrounding my Granny's death. I can tell you things about my own life. But I don't think you would see that as a "logical" explanation.

I have no conflict with atheism/agnosticism.... except when they passively aggressively try to convert me. "I'm going to assume you don't realize the insult in your statement" is a far cry from "what you said was insulting!" I've already explained this. But I shall explain it again. Hopefully you'll understand this time. If you and I faced the same or similar doubts, why do you accept that you used reason and assume I didn't to come to our respective decisions? I don't see any purpose to convincing others of my logic.

Gee... wasn't I asking questions too? I didn't "say" anything. The atheists/agnostics in these forums who insist on discussing faith with the beleievers. For someone that prides himself on his "reason" you can't seem to grasp the fact that I'm not insulted. The foundation is indeed faith. That would be why I keep using the word in each and every response. I can almost type it without looking at the keyboard now, too. How about you use that reason and logic you seem to think are the hallmark of the non-believers. People who are raised in a religion all go through a time when they face doubts. Some choose to remain in their beliefs, others don't. For some reason, you choose to believe that only one group used reason. I don't. You're very perceptive.

Do NOT do this again. If you want an honest discussion with me, quote me in context. don't cut off half my statement to make it look like I was saying something completely different. No response on a web board is going to shatter my faith. But most of these discussions aren't honest ones. Take this one, for example. It pre-supposes that those of us with faith have no reason. What does my faith have to do with evolution? I believe in evolution. There's no "vs" in the discussion.

You stated your opinion and then asked for responses as if your opinion was fact. It isn't. I've heard several people claim that there way is the only way. Some Christians wouldn't accept my baptism as "real" because I wasn't immersed. Others wouldn't because I was baptised as an infant. This is their opinion, and doesn't have any affect on my own faith and relationship with God. I don't really know what you mean here. New creatures? But my point stands... most forums' religion sections are full of atheists ridiculing the faithful. Not just Christians, but every religion. I'm not seeing much different here. So you don't think reasoning ever plays a role... not even when children grow up and make their own decisions? Look at it this way. When you were little, your parents read you simple stories, probably ones where the main characters were talking animals. As an adult, do you continue to read the same sorts of stories? Or have you found a genre or 2 that appeal to you? I was raised in the Christian faith. I've studied other faiths, but for one reason or another, I prefer my own. I'm sure tradition and the familiar do play a role, but it doesn't paint the entire picture.